"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Is making Social Security more fiscally sound "impossible"?

Jeff Rigby wrote:
It is as long as it's being made a political football.


Agreed, to a large extent.

Is an energy-independent America "impossible"

Yes unless we go from 25% nuclear to at least 75% nuclear.

That's hilarious... I guess decentralized solar & fuel-cell power won't
return enough money to the big corporations, and they're the ones that
make big political contribution$... so yeah, we won't be seeing any of
that for a long long time... do some research on "off-grid powered
housing." I used to call 'em 'survivalists' but it's a different attitude.

The problem with solar power besides the cost to make the solar cells
(energy) and maintain (they have a limited life before they degrade) is
storage. Current battery technology is terrible. Having your solar cells
feed back into the electric grid is the best solution now. So we still have
to have the current generation system. With fuel cell technology you still
have to have the energy to crack water to make the hydrogen. Thus the
reason for nuclear power plants. France is 80% nuclear power (one of their
reasons for supporting the kyoto treaty).


Would it have been impossible to put together a *real* coalition to
invade Iraq, like say for example the one that President George Bush Sr
put together?

YES, remember the bribes that FRENCH and RUSSIAN polititions were
getting.

Oh yeah, park that fantasy right next to NOBBY's ongoing daydreams about
Iraqi WMDs getting shipped to Syria.

Did you know that American pals of Cheneys were getting more money from
the oil-for-food scams than the Russians and the French put together?

Prove that, point to a NEWS source that supports that statement.

Like I said, if it was impossible then how come Bush's daddy managed it?

Yeah and thats one of the resons we had to invade Iraq, the job was never
finished. We had to maintain a no fly zone to protect the north and south
of Iraq from Saddam. That cost us 2 billion a year. We lost our major base
(airport) in Saudi arabia and couldn't maintain the no-flys as economically.
Also we had Democrats in congress calling for and passing the depose Saddam
resolution. Just no-one with courage to implement it.


Is it "impossible" to increase manufacturing jobs?

When we have restrictions on our companys that foreign countrys don't,
yes.

Gee, let's get rid of all pollution laws and let's start hiring subteens
and chaining them factory benches. Heck with that, let's just force
prisoners to work for free... BTW remember that parking ticket you got
years ago...

NO, but we can add taxes to the incoming goods that equal the difference in
burdon that our plants have when competing with one that doesn't have the
same restrictions. That makes it less attractive to polute in third world
countrys. Currently it's illegal for us to do that because of trade
language that was passed when the democrats controlled congress.

Is it "impossible" to gain the respect of, and cooperation with, other
nations?

All countries act in their own short term interest.

Agreed. OTOH if we don't insult & trample other countries needlessly, they
might be more cooperative on the anti-terror thing.

After Sept 11th the whole world was on our side... except for the very few
Muslim radicals who openly sided with Al-Queda.

The Bush Administration has squandered that good will and lost the chance
to forge a meaningful alliance against terrorism.



Is influencing North Korea to not build "nookular" weapons totally
impossible, when it had been done for years before President Bush Jr took
office?

see below

Is it "impossible" to protect the environment?

No, just difficult.


Clinton made an effort to do all of the above but you need a good faith
effort on the part of all involved before anything is accomplished. From
the failures that Clinton had with both N Korea and the Palestinians,
Bush had learned that they DON'T act in good faith. The N. Koreans took
the money we gave them for fuel oil and invested it in nuclear breeder
reactors and gas diffusion enriching equipment so we took the hard line
with them.

Really? We sold them that stuff long before... and the Koreans knew more
than you did about Clinton's planning to raid their nuclear facilities if
they didn't dance right. The pros at the State Dept managed the show under
Clinton, not the suck-up right-wing whackos that the Bushies have put in
charge.

The Clinton Administration... or at least, the pros at State... offered
the N Koreans a carrot & a stick, and had credible intelligence about what
was going on. The Bush Administration offers no carrot, threatens with a
stick it doesn't have, and believes it's own daydreams.

The results speak for themselves.

Yes their nuclear program has been going on for more than 10 years. Much of
it while Clinton was in office. Think about the time it takes to build a
nuclear reactor, gather the uranium ore, process the ore and load the
nuclear reactor. Then run the breeder reactor for 2 years to make enough
plutonium to be extracted, then to seperate the plutonium out of the uranium
fuel rods. The technology to build the detonation system and delivery
system isn't developed overnight either. All of these take a lot of money
and a dedicated government with savy managers to coordinate all these
technologys.

Yes Clinton talked about using the stick, Democrats talk the same line as
Republicans but rairly do anything. Actually that's unfair, there have been
far sighted Democrats....just very few of them. Look at how many wars start
in the world when a power vacuum is created by our system.


Bush refused to meet with the Palestinians until they had new management
and Arafat their leader suddenly died, new management.


Are you insinuating that perhaps Arafat had a little 'accident?'

YES

I resent our leaders giving money away when they KNOW that all they get
is some positive world press because we tried while the people we are
trying to help laugh at our system of government. "Look we got 20
million dollars from the stupid Americans. We know how to play the game
now too."

Yep, that's why President Bush has had such a marvelous success in foreign
policy, I guess.

Yup, he refused to deal with or give money to them. We have been supporting
both sides (money) and it has been in their interest to continue the
conflict. Now it's in their interest to solve the problem.


DSK

... I guess decentralized solar & fuel-cell power won't
return enough money to the big corporations, and they're the ones that
make big political contribution$... so yeah, we won't be seeing any of
that for a long long time... do some research on "off-grid powered
housing." I used to call 'em 'survivalists' but it's a different attitude.


Jeff Rigby wrote:
The problem with solar power besides the cost to make the solar cells
(energy) and maintain (they have a limited life before they degrade) is
storage.

Your point? 'Conventional' energy system ain't cheap, nor are they
trouble free.

... Current battery technology is terrible.

Only in comparison to fossil fuel technology. It may be physically
impossible to store as much energy in electro-chemical bonds per pound
as is available in a pound of gasoline.


... Having your solar cells
feed back into the electric grid is the best solution now.

Not really. A lot of people are taking their houses off the grid,
putting in 24V lighting & fridge etc etc. It works acceptably. How much
is your electric bill each month?

Personally, my solution is to buy stock in the gas & oil companies, but
that doesn't work for everybody either.


Would it have been impossible to put together a *real* coalition to
invade Iraq, like say for example the one that President George Bush Sr
put together?

YES, remember the bribes that FRENCH and RUSSIAN polititions were
getting.

Oh yeah, park that fantasy right next to NOBBY's ongoing daydreams about
Iraqi WMDs getting shipped to Syria.

Did you know that American pals of Cheneys were getting more money from
the oil-for-food scams than the Russians and the French put together?


Prove that, point to a NEWS source that supports that statement.


Why bother? A yay-Bush person like yourself isn't going to believe any
link I post. However, the facts are out there even if Fox News isn't
shouting it at you 24/7.

Like I said, if it was impossible then how come Bush's daddy managed it?


Yeah and thats one of the resons we had to invade Iraq, the job was never
finished.

Oh, so now Bush Sr is part of the problem? Golly, during the election
the RNC was trying to make us believe that 1988 to 1992 was a golden era
where everything was perfect.

... We had to maintain a no fly zone to protect the north and south
of Iraq from Saddam. That cost us 2 billion a year. We lost our major base
(airport) in Saudi arabia and couldn't maintain the no-flys as economically.
Also we had Democrats in congress calling for and passing the depose Saddam
resolution. Just no-one with courage to implement it.

Did the resolution call for spitting on the UN and destroying former
alliances in order to go it alone?


Is it "impossible" to increase manufacturing jobs?

When we have restrictions on our companys that foreign countrys don't,
yes.

Gee, let's get rid of all pollution laws and let's start hiring subteens
and chaining them factory benches. Heck with that, let's just force
prisoners to work for free... BTW remember that parking ticket you got
years ago...


NO, but we can add taxes to the incoming goods that equal the difference in
burdon that our plants have when competing with one that doesn't have the
same restrictions.

That's the way it's *supposed* to work now.


... That makes it less attractive to polute in third world
countrys. Currently it's illegal for us to do that because of trade
language that was passed when the democrats controlled congress.

Horse ****. Go read the NAFTA treaty... which was passed by a Republican
Congress... another yay-Bush lie which you eagerly swallow.


The Clinton Administration... or at least, the pros at State... offered
the N Koreans a carrot & a stick, and had credible intelligence about what
was going on. The Bush Administration offers no carrot, threatens with a
stick it doesn't have, and believes it's own daydreams.

The results speak for themselves.


Yes their nuclear program has been going on for more than 10 years. Much of
it while Clinton was in office. Think about the time it takes to build a
nuclear reactor, gather the uranium ore, process the ore and load the
nuclear reactor.

Yep. However, there are key differences between building a nuclear power
plant and building a bomb.

... Then run the breeder reactor for 2 years to make enough
plutonium to be extracted, then to seperate the plutonium out of the uranium
fuel rods.

Which is what they *weren't* doing, and verifiably so. But guess what,
the Bush Administration has let both the military options and the
intelligence assets slip away.

... The technology to build the detonation system and delivery
system isn't developed overnight either.

No, they developed and tested the missiles back in the 1980s. But hey,
it must be all Clinton's fault, right?



Yes Clinton talked about using the stick, Democrats talk the same line as
Republicans but rairly do anything. Actually that's unfair, there have been
far sighted Democrats....just very few of them. Look at how many wars start
in the world when a power vacuum is created by our system.

Look at how the current war was started by greed & ignorance. Which do
you prefer?


Are you insinuating that perhaps Arafat had a little 'accident?'


YES


Doubtful, Arafat was old & sick and it was surprising he had lived as
long as had. Well overdue.


I resent our leaders giving money away when they KNOW that all they get
is some positive world press because we tried while the people we are
trying to help laugh at our system of government. "Look we got 20
million dollars from the stupid Americans. We know how to play the game
now too."

Yep, that's why President Bush has had such a marvelous success in foreign
policy, I guess.


Yup, he refused to deal with or give money to them. We have been supporting
both sides (money) and it has been in their interest to continue the
conflict. Now it's in their interest to solve the problem.

I guess that's why so many "problems" are being solved around the world?
Iran & North Korea with nukes, a thousand+ US deaths in Iraq and ten
thousand maimed, terrorism on the rise, fewer countries willing to
cooperate with US counter-intel & counter-terrorism ops, and then
there's all the economic issues which NOBBY keeps trying obfuscate. You
think this is good going?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..


Did the resolution call for spitting on the UN and destroying former
alliances in order to go it alone?

Yes, it did called for spitting on the people that were ****ting on us.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
... I guess decentralized solar & fuel-cell power won't return enough
money to the big corporations, and they're the ones that make big
political contribution$... so yeah, we won't be seeing any of that for a
long long time... do some research on "off-grid powered housing." I used
to call 'em 'survivalists' but it's a different attitude.


Jeff Rigby wrote:
The problem with solar power besides the cost to make the solar cells
(energy) and maintain (they have a limited life before they degrade) is
storage.

Your point? 'Conventional' energy system ain't cheap, nor are they trouble
free.

... Current battery technology is terrible.

Only in comparison to fossil fuel technology. It may be physically
impossible to store as much energy in electro-chemical bonds per pound as
is available in a pound of gasoline.

For fixed storage, weight is not the issue, it's economics. IF you have 10
batterys in a state like Arizona for for use at night, that might work but
for Florida where we get cloudy days you might need 30 batterys. And every
2-3 years you need to replace those batterys. Not economical at the current
cost for fuel unless you live outside the power grid and transporting fuel
is too prohibative in cost economics again.


... Having your solar cells feed back into the electric grid is the best
solution now.

Not really. A lot of people are taking their houses off the grid, putting
in 24V lighting & fridge etc etc. It works acceptably. How much is your
electric bill each month?

$100 and most of that is Air conditioning for the 90 degree 99% humidity
days, I have a very efficient (good insulation) home. Can't use solar power
for Air conditioning. There are some locations that have climates that lend
themselves to well designed homes that use the sun to heat and solar power
to provide electricity for appliances. Their electric bills today are
probably (without solar panels) $25 per month.

I'd love to live in N. Carolina by a stream that I could use to provide
hydo-electic power, to be totally self contained. Ain't happening.

Did you know that American pals of Cheneys were getting more money from
the oil-for-food scams than the Russians and the French put together?

Prove that, point to a NEWS source that supports that statement.

Why bother? A yay-Bush person like yourself isn't going to believe any
link I post. However, the facts are out there even if Fox News isn't
shouting it at you 24/7.

I googled and look what I found:

"With regard to the three individuals cited in the CIA report and "revealed"
by the Times, two of the individuals have been known since January 2004 when
the Scandal information was first publicized in Iraq. The first American is
Iraqi-born Samir Vincent who has lived in the U.S. since 1958 and once
organized a delegation of Iraqi religious leaders to visit the U.S. and meet
with former president Jimmy Carter. And the other person is Shaker
Al-Khafaji who has historically had an indepth involvement with the Hussein
regime. He is described by The Middle East Mediar Reseach Institute (MEMRI)
as "the pro-Saddam chairman of the 17th conference of Iraqi expatriates,"
and financed a film by Scott Ritter, former UN inspector, [which argued]
against UN sanctions, admitted to having financial ties to the Hussein
regime, been active in the anti-Iraq-war movement and accompanied
Congressmen Jim McDermott (D- Wash.), Mike Thompson (D-Calif), and David
Bonior (D-Mich) to Baghdad prior to Gulf War II in 2002 to criticize the
impending war."

... Current battery technology is terrible.

Only in comparison to fossil fuel technology. It may be physically
impossible to store as much energy in electro-chemical bonds per pound as
is available in a pound of gasoline.


Jeff Rigby wrote:
For fixed storage, weight is not the issue, it's economics. IF you have 10
batterys in a state like Arizona for for use at night, that might work but
for Florida where we get cloudy days you might need 30 batterys. And every
2-3 years you need to replace those batterys. Not economical at the current
cost for fuel unless you live outside the power grid and transporting fuel
is too prohibative in cost economics again.


Well, Jeff, a lot of people are doing it. I assume they've weighed out
the cost & benefit; if it doesn't actually save them significant cash
then maybe they value independence that much.

You seem to overestimate the need for batteries, probably their cost
too, and how much a household that is set up to run efficiently would use.

I'm not trying to sell you such a system, but they exist, they're
practical, and they're more popular than you'd think.





I'd love to live in N. Carolina by a stream that I could use to provide
hydo-electic power, to be totally self contained. Ain't happening.

Not many suitable locations, and what there are, the land is expensive
enough that you'd be much better off with an off-the-shelf battery/solar
charge 24V DC system.



I googled and look what I found:

"With regard to the three individuals cited in the CIA report and "revealed"
by the Times, two of the individuals have been known since January 2004 when
the Scandal information was first publicized in Iraq. The first American is
Iraqi-born Samir Vincent who has lived in the U.S. since 1958 and once
organized a delegation of Iraqi religious leaders to visit the U.S. and meet
with former president Jimmy Carter. And the other person is Shaker
Al-Khafaji who has historically had an indepth involvement with the Hussein
regime. He is described by The Middle East Mediar Reseach Institute (MEMRI)
as "the pro-Saddam chairman of the 17th conference of Iraqi expatriates,"
and financed a film by Scott Ritter, former UN inspector, [which argued]
against UN sanctions, admitted to having financial ties to the Hussein
regime, been active in the anti-Iraq-war movement and accompanied
Congressmen Jim McDermott (D- Wash.), Mike Thompson (D-Calif), and David
Bonior (D-Mich) to Baghdad prior to Gulf War II in 2002 to criticize the
impending war."


So how come FOX News isn't shouting aboout how Jimmy Carter is
implicated in the oil-for-food scandal?

There are at least 2 other people with Repub & VP connections not
mentioned in this article. But I'm impressed that you actually looked.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
... Current battery technology is terrible.

Only in comparison to fossil fuel technology. It may be physically
impossible to store as much energy in electro-chemical bonds per pound as
is available in a pound of gasoline.


Jeff Rigby wrote:
For fixed storage, weight is not the issue, it's economics. IF you have
10 batterys in a state like Arizona for for use at night, that might work
but for Florida where we get cloudy days you might need 30 batterys.
And every 2-3 years you need to replace those batterys. Not economical
at the current cost for fuel unless you live outside the power grid and
transporting fuel is too prohibative in cost economics again.


Well, Jeff, a lot of people are doing it. I assume they've weighed out the
cost & benefit; if it doesn't actually save them significant cash then
maybe they value independence that much.

You seem to overestimate the need for batteries, probably their cost too,
and how much a household that is set up to run efficiently would use.

I'm not trying to sell you such a system, but they exist, they're
practical, and they're more popular than you'd think.





I'd love to live in N. Carolina by a stream that I could use to provide
hydo-electic power, to be totally self contained. Ain't happening.

Not many suitable locations, and what there are, the land is expensive
enough that you'd be much better off with an off-the-shelf battery/solar
charge 24V DC system.


Homes are a LONG term investment and people need to look out 30 years into
the future when they are designing them. Assume that energy costs are going
to become the biggest expense for the home owner and try to make the house
energy efficient. High ceilings, ceiling fans, lots of insulation, solar
water heaters, appliances that turn on at night to use energy when it's less
expensive, Driers that pull air out of the attic that's already 130 degrees
and doesn't have to be heated, lcd panel tv's instead of plasma (80 watts vs
900 watts), solar powered refrigerators, and more that could be developed.
All of these are doable NOW.

You still need the power grid in most areas at least for some of the
seasons. But you could reduce energy needs by about 50%. An economic
payoff that at todays energy cost would pay for it'self in 20 years and if
energy costs increase allow you to maintain the same comfort level without
damaging your pocketbook.

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
... Current battery technology is terrible.

Only in comparison to fossil fuel technology. It may be physically
impossible to store as much energy in electro-chemical bonds per pound
as is available in a pound of gasoline.


Jeff Rigby wrote:
For fixed storage, weight is not the issue, it's economics. IF you have
10 batterys in a state like Arizona for for use at night, that might
work but for Florida where we get cloudy days you might need 30
batterys. And every 2-3 years you need to replace those batterys. Not
economical at the current cost for fuel unless you live outside the
power grid and transporting fuel is too prohibative in cost economics
again.


Well, Jeff, a lot of people are doing it. I assume they've weighed out
the cost & benefit; if it doesn't actually save them significant cash
then maybe they value independence that much.

You seem to overestimate the need for batteries, probably their cost too,
and how much a household that is set up to run efficiently would use.

I'm not trying to sell you such a system, but they exist, they're
practical, and they're more popular than you'd think.





I'd love to live in N. Carolina by a stream that I could use to provide
hydo-electic power, to be totally self contained. Ain't happening.

Not many suitable locations, and what there are, the land is expensive
enough that you'd be much better off with an off-the-shelf battery/solar
charge 24V DC system.


Homes are a LONG term investment and people need to look out 30 years into
the future when they are designing them. Assume that energy costs are
going to become the biggest expense for the home owner and try to make the
house energy efficient. High ceilings, ceiling fans, lots of insulation,
solar water heaters, appliances that turn on at night to use energy when
it's less expensive, Driers that pull air out of the attic that's already
130 degrees and doesn't have to be heated, lcd panel tv's instead of
plasma (80 watts vs 900 watts), solar powered refrigerators, and more that
could be developed. All of these are doable NOW.

You still need the power grid in most areas at least for some of the
seasons. But you could reduce energy needs by about 50%. An economic
payoff that at todays energy cost would pay for it'self in 20 years and if
energy costs increase allow you to maintain the same comfort level without
damaging your pocketbook.



You need to the power grid to make in financially feasible. Most ot the
solar powered houses and businesses, feed excess power into the grid. The
power companies pay the generator for the power. So, during the day, you
generate an extra 5kw, and at night, you use 6 KW. You only have to pay for
1kw of power. And in California, the power company is required to pay you
at their highest cost to generate power.